Jump to content
Sign in to follow this  
Followers 5
Geokashers

Signing challenge caches before qualification - and note logs

Recommended Posts

If cache owners didn't want people to sign the logs before completing the challenge could they not only provide the final coordinates to people who can prove they qualify for the challenge?

I've gone over the history several times in just this thread.

 

At one time challenges caches were set up where you did the challenge, sent your proof the cache owner, and received the actual coordinates to find the cache. Because of the need to e-mail the cache owner, these cache required approval from Groundspeak and were rarely published.

 

A series of guidelines changes and later reversal for additional logging requirement, had a huge effect on challenge caches. It replaced the basic idea that challenges caches were for people to find after they had completed the challenge and provided proof to the cache owner with the concept that you could find the cache first, then do the challenge and provide proof. Challenge caches simple could not be logged a found online unless you met all the requirements.

 

TPTB say that completing the challenge and proving proof is fundamentally different than all other ALRs. To me this is "new speak". The changes that were made and then later unmade for supporting ALRs broke the originally idea behind challenges.

 

All Signal's horses

And all Signal's men,

Couldn't put Challenges

Back together again.

Share this post


Link to post

If a CO is deleting notes, posting a complaint to GS using the www.geocaching.com/help form may result in the note being re-instated.

This advice directly contradicts prior posts to this thread by two primary contributors to the Help Center article on log deletion. Did I miss a memo?

Share this post


Link to post

If a CO is deleting notes, posting a complaint to GS using the www.geocaching.com/help form may result in the note being re-instated.

This advice directly contradicts prior posts to this thread by two primary contributors to the Help Center article on log deletion. Did I miss a memo?

 

I guess *I* missed the memo which indicates that we are not allowed to contradict posts by "primary contributors to Help Center articles".

 

How is it contradictory? Given that you are credited as one of original authors for the log deletion article, could you explain how it is contradictory?

 

Here is what I think are the relevant portions of the page:

8. Cachers may value their DNFs, Notes, and Needs Maintenance logs, don't assume it's okay to delete them. Those logs are part of their caching history.

 

10. If you are a geocacher and you believe that your log was deleted in error, you will have politely emailed the geocache owner requesting that the log be reinstated. If you require further assistance, please email www.geocaching.com/help.

 

The way I interpret that is that a cache owner should not assume it is okay to delete Note logs as they are part of the cache history and if a CO does delete a note log, the geocacher can ask for the log to be reinstated, and finally that the www.geocaching.com/help page can be used to have GS resolve the dispute.

Share this post


Link to post

If a CO is deleting notes, posting a complaint to GS using the www.geocaching.com/help form may result in the note being re-instated.

This advice directly contradicts prior posts to this thread by two primary contributors to the Help Center article on log deletion. Did I miss a memo?

 

I guess *I* missed the memo which indicates that we are not allowed to contradict posts by "primary contributors to Help Center articles".

 

How is it contradictory? Given that you are credited as one of original authors for the log deletion article, could you explain how it is contradictory?

 

Here is what I think are the relevant portions of the page:

8. Cachers may value their DNFs, Notes, and Needs Maintenance logs, don't assume it's okay to delete them. Those logs are part of their caching history.

 

10. If you are a geocacher and you believe that your log was deleted in error, you will have politely emailed the geocache owner requesting that the log be reinstated. If you require further assistance, please email www.geocaching.com/help.

 

The way I interpret that is that a cache owner should not assume it is okay to delete Note logs as they are part of the cache history and if a CO does delete a note log, the geocacher can ask for the log to be reinstated, and finally that the www.geocaching.com/help page can be used to have GS resolve the dispute.

 

See posts #3 and #4...it's a resource issue.

Share this post


Link to post

1. Read posts 4 and 5.

 

2. Try going to the Email portal, select a subject of "Geocacher Disagreement" and a subcategory of "Log Deletion." You will see a popup message which says, in relevant part:

 

Geocache Log deletion: If your "Found it" log on a geocache details page has been deleted because the geocache owner disagreed with your comments, be the bigger person, repost a neutral log without the commentary. If you have feedback that may be beneficial, you can respectfully contact the geocache owner privately.

 

Geocaching HQ can only reinstate "Found It" and "Attended" logs on geocache listings. Before sending us a request, please double check that your log is not in violation of our Terms of Use and review our Logging Guidelines...

Share this post


Link to post

Cache owners don't have a whole lot of control over finders' behaviors. If a cache location cannot stand much traffic, perhaps they should find a better location or use a better way to reduce traffic (e.g., premium members only, add a puzzle for the final coordinates).

Well I don't necessarily disagree with most of your disagreements to my comments, however, I don't really see why if it's okay to use premium members only or adding a puzzle to limit visitors to a cache, yet it's not okay to expect that limiting it to challenge qualifiers would also limit the amount of visitors? Or at least I don't see how or why that's a "better" way to do it, and in whose opinion and by what criteria which is "better".

 

Besides adding a puzzle won't necessarily prevent people from finding it, they'll just cheat on the puzzle.

Share this post


Link to post

Cache owners don't have a whole lot of control over finders' behaviors. If a cache location cannot stand much traffic, perhaps they should find a better location or use a better way to reduce traffic (e.g., premium members only, add a puzzle for the final coordinates).

Well I don't necessarily disagree with most of your disagreements to my comments, however, I don't really see why if it's okay to use premium members only or adding a puzzle to limit visitors to a cache, yet it's not okay to expect that limiting it to challenge qualifiers would also limit the amount of visitors? Or at least I don't see how or why that's a "better" way to do it, and in whose opinion and by what criteria which is "better".

Simple. The guidelines say it's okay to create premium member only caches and puzzle caches. The guidelines now say it's not okay to demand that nobody sign a challenge cache's physical log before they complete the challenge requirements.

 

Finding a better hiding place is another option.

Share this post


Link to post

To be honest, whatever the rules: I only go out to find a challenge once I qualify. I feel I should not log it as long as I don't quality. Plus it would mess up my stats anyway. If there's a fantastic challenge at a place a few flight hours away that I only visit once then I'd still not go out to find it if I don't qualify. It just feels wrong. And no, I'm not angry that I did not go to find the EarthCache challenge in Houston when I was there a while ago even though I might not get there again and qualify by now.

 

Mrs. terratin

Share this post


Link to post

To be honest, whatever the rules: I only go out to find a challenge once I qualify. I feel I should not log it as long as I don't quality. Plus it would mess up my stats anyway.

 

Who said anything about logging it as a find without qualifying?

 

I am not interested in rereading this entire thread so please let me know if I misunderstood a salient point. This is what I've learned so far.

 

A. The latest guidance allows signing of the physical log prior to qualifying for the challenge. Only after actually qualifying for the challenge can the cache then be logged as a find on GC.com. Simple enough.

 

B. Owners can not disallow the signing of the physical log prior to qualification. To me it is unclear how this affects cache pages that have disallowed pre-signing prior to the latest "clarification".

 

C. There is nothing to prevent finders from logging a note of "just in case I qualify at a later date" on the cache page to help remind themselves of the fact that they have found and signed the log. It also appears there is nothing to prevent owners from deleting these notes as Groundspeak will not reinstate notes under appeal.

Share this post


Link to post

To be honest, whatever the rules: I only go out to find a challenge once I qualify. I feel I should not log it as long as I don't quality. Plus it would mess up my stats anyway. If there's a fantastic challenge at a place a few flight hours away that I only visit once then I'd still not go out to find it if I don't qualify. It just feels wrong. And no, I'm not angry that I did not go to find the EarthCache challenge in Houston when I was there a while ago even though I might not get there again and qualify by now.

 

Mrs. terratin

That's a perfectly acceptable way to geocache. Other people have different attitudes towards signing physical logs before completing challenge requirements. For all future challenge caches (and many existing ones), that's also a perfectly acceptable way to geocache. Win. Win.

Share this post


Link to post

Cache owner CANNOT specify the order of go on Challenges caches - qualify, sign log , verify. All 3 three things need to happen before you log a smiley, but the cache owner doesn't get to specify the order.

 

That said, currently Groundspeak won't get involved in restoring your lNote; they only deal with find count logs these days.

So, on paper, the CO can't dictate the order, but in reality they can?

 

:blink:

 

...sounds like that clause needs to just be removed from the guidelines if it's never enforced.

 

Maybe if the CO is confronted with the authoritative opinions expressed here the CO would change their attitude. If not, then they're *really* rude.

Share this post


Link to post

Simple. The guidelines say it's okay to create premium member only caches and puzzle caches. The guidelines now say it's not okay to demand that nobody sign a challenge cache's physical log before they complete the challenge requirements.

 

Finding a better hiding place is another option.

 

This has nothing to do with demanding that non-qualifiers not sign it, just hiding it with the intention that it will only be found by qualifiers. If you are intending it to be found by everybody, qualifiers and non-qualifiers, then a CO might as well just make it a traditional, there's no point in making it a challenge cache.

 

Just limiting it to PMO or limiting it to people who are able to solve (or cheat) at a puzzle might not restrict it enough for a particular location. I'm thinking of an example where a CO might have a very special cache perhaps a very intricate or hand crafted container, something he doesn't want every Tom Dick and Harry to come look for. Maybe it's on his own property, maybe it's somewhere he doesn't want every idiot with a smartphone app to come snooping around. Maybe it's a very well-thought out hide, a very intricately designed cache that is truly an accomplishment, designed only for those that have accomplished a very specific set of Geocaching related acheievements that would insure it would get a very limited amount of visits per year. In fact, so few, that when someone were to find it the CO might want to invite them in for tea or something, because they certainly have accomplished something special.

 

He certainly wouldn't want to deal, at such a location like that, with multiple visits per day of non-qualifiers signing the physical log and logging it as a note just so that someday when they do qualify, they'll have a record of it.

 

Yes, you could find a different location, but that's a whole different cache. Put it at a different location, make it a traditional, go put it under a lamppost, yes that's what we need, more of those. I'm talking about something special, and if guidelines prevent that, then that's a shame, because there's nothing special about another LPC at Wal-Mart.

Edited by TopShelfRob

Share this post


Link to post

Simple. The guidelines say it's okay to create premium member only caches and puzzle caches. The guidelines now say it's not okay to demand that nobody sign a challenge cache's physical log before they complete the challenge requirements.

 

Finding a better hiding place is another option.

This has nothing to do with demanding that non-qualifiers not sign it, just hiding it with the intention that it will only be found by qualifiers. If you are intending it to be found by everybody, qualifiers and non-qualifiers, then a CO might as well just make it a traditional, there's no point in making it a challenge cache.

 

Just limiting it to PMO or limiting it to people who are able to solve (or cheat) at a puzzle might not restrict it enough for a particular location. I'm thinking of an example where a CO might have a very special cache perhaps a very intricate or hand crafted container, something he doesn't want every Tom Dick and Harry to come look for. Maybe it's on his own property, maybe it's somewhere he doesn't want every idiot with a smartphone app to come snooping around. Maybe it's a very well-thought out hide, a very intricately designed cache that is truly an accomplishment, designed only for those that have accomplished a very specific set of Geocaching related acheievements that would insure it would get a very limited amount of visits per year. In fact, so few, that when someone were to find it the CO might want to invite them in for tea or something, because they certainly have accomplished something special.

 

He certainly wouldn't want to deal, at such a location like that, with multiple visits per day of non-qualifiers signing the physical log and logging it as a note just so that someday when they do qualify, they'll have a record of it.

 

Yes, you could find a different location, but that's a whole different cache. Put it at a different location, make it a traditional, go put it under a lamppost, yes that's what we need, more of those. I'm talking about something special, and if guidelines prevent that, then that's a shame, because there's nothing special about another LPC at Wal-Mart.

Some guidelines are going to prevent cache owners from accomplishing what they desire. I could have a very creative idea that involves partially burying a cache, but the guidelines wouldn't permit the publication of that cache, even if I (and others) considered that a shame.

 

If your challenge cache owner wants to invite certain cachers (e.g., those who already have accomplished the challenge) in for tea, then they certainly could restrict their invitations to such finders. But if it's a new challenge cache, then they could not require all searchers to already have completed the requirements. If they hide the cache with such an intention, then they should be prepared to be disappointed. Life doesn't always give us what we want.

 

I'm not sure where you get the idea that challenge cache owners intend to have their caches found by everyone. The main reason why they hide challenge caches instead of traditionals is that they expect geocachers to "meet a geocaching-related qualification or series of tasks." (But you already know that.)

 

Nor do I understand how you interpreted my comments as suggesting that a challenge owner who wants to restrict the number of finders should hide it under a Wal-Mart LPC.

Share this post


Link to post

I'm not sure where you get the idea that challenge cache owners intend to have their caches found by everyone. The main reason why they hide challenge caches instead of traditionals is that they expect geocachers to "meet a geocaching-related qualification or series of tasks." (But you already know that.)

No, I do assume they intend on their challenge caches only being found by qualifiers. But if they can't enforce that by not being able to restrict non-qualifiers from finding them, then what does it matter what their intentions are? The net result is anyone can find them, whether they have qualified or not.

 

Nor do I understand how you interpreted my comments as suggesting that a challenge owner who wants to restrict the number of finders should hide it under a Wal-Mart LPC.

I'm not saying your comments are suggesting that, I'm saying that they might as well just hide another lame LPC rather than bother with an intricate challenege cache that will sooner or later eventually just get muggled by a non-qualifer anyway.

Share this post


Link to post

I'm not saying your comments are suggesting that, I'm saying that they might as well just hide another lame LPC rather than bother with an intricate challenege cache that will sooner or later eventually just get muggled by a non-qualifer anyway.

These were not 'intricate' challenge caches. And in the end....most caches end up being muggled or somehow disappear. So why even have geocaching?

 

I think the people posting here are starting to get off topic a bit. There are rules to geocaching....and cachers are seeming to interpret these rules in different ways....although some of that is because of how the rules have evolved over time. The rules continue to be refined over time and that's usually a good thing. Cachers should play to have fun....however they define that fun.....while abiding in the rules.

 

Whether or not you think challenge caches should be found by those that don't yet qualify....the deletion of the 'note logs' is what this thread was originally talking about.

Share this post


Link to post

I'm not sure where you get the idea that challenge cache owners intend to have their caches found by everyone. The main reason why they hide challenge caches instead of traditionals is that they expect geocachers to "meet a geocaching-related qualification or series of tasks." (But you already know that.)

No, I do assume they intend on their challenge caches only being found by qualifiers. But if they can't enforce that by not being able to restrict non-qualifiers from finding them, then what does it matter what their intentions are? The net result is anyone can find them, whether they have qualified or not.

Non-qualifiers can log a "Write Note." Only those who qualify and sign the physical log can log an online "Found It." Challenge cache owners always have (and will continue to) be able to enforce that by deleting illegitimate "Found It" logs.

 

Nor do I understand how you interpreted my comments as suggesting that a challenge owner who wants to restrict the number of finders should hide it under a Wal-Mart LPC.

I'm not saying your comments are suggesting that, I'm saying that they might as well just hide another lame LPC rather than bother with an intricate challenege cache that will sooner or later eventually just get muggled by a non-qualifer anyway.

I've found numerous intricate hides that aren't challenge caches. In fact, I've hidden several, and none of them have been muggled yet.

Share this post


Link to post

... that will sooner or later eventually just get muggled by a non-qualifer anyway.

A challenge cache owner might believe that if you could block non-qualifiers from visiting they cache is it less likely to be muggled. I not sure that many would make the claim that muggler is someone who sought the cache without first qualifying.

 

It has certainly been discussed that some challenge owners intend this to be a cache that few people will find. I know that my puzzles and some of my caches that require a long hike will get few finds; I understand the reasons someone might want to limit visitors to a cache. The original geocaching use of muggle meant a non-geocacher, not someone who steals caches. I personally that placing caches where non-geocahing muggles won't find them is more important the than limiting the number of geocachers who see the coordinates.

 

Unfortunately there have been cases of people joining Geocaching.com to be able to get the coordinates of caches and take the containers or the contents. Often this gets cited as the reason for making a cache premium member only. But the existence of these people seems a faulty reason for making a challenge cache, especially since challenges that are not at the posted coordinates or cannot be determined without email to the cache owner are rarely published (and probably have not been published since 2007)

Share this post


Link to post

I did not mean to infer that I was referring to the original poster's situation, just a hypothetical situation that a challenge cache owner could have to deal with considering that such a challenge cache could be unintendedly sought out by non-qualifiers.

 

Wasn't trying to get off topic, however, just mentioning this as to how it relates to non-qualifiers logging challenge caches as notes, as in the original post.

Share this post


Link to post
Toz:

"...challenges that are not at the posted coordinates or cannot be determined without email to the cache owner are rarely published (and probably have not been published since 2007)"

 

The end of "email me for coords" is earlier than that, it was in the Nov 2005 guideline update (bold added by me):

Nov 2005 guidelines, Mystery or Puzzle Caches

 

The "catch-all" of cache types, this form of cache often involves complicated puzzles that you will first need to solve in order to determine the coordinates. The information needed to solve the puzzle must be available to the general caching community and should be solvable from the information provided on the cache listing. For example, a puzzle that requires research on public websites in order to determine the coordinates may be acceptable, while a puzzle that requires sending an e-mail to the cache owner with the solution in order to obtain the coordinates may not be

 

That said, a number of "email me" caches were published after this date ;-) I started reviewing shortly after this change, so I noticed it. I'm thinking some reviewers didn't get with it for a while. And they did have the "may not be" wiggle room after all. My own ALR cache from this period I got Groundspeak permission for "email me for coords". Later, I edited it to a challenge type, and later still with coords on cache page, to meet the current guideline. Which I prefer.

 

To TopShelfRob, you seem to be promoting either the return of "email me for coords", or the end of challenge caches. I'd say "email me for coords" is dead, it's been 9 years since it went away. As to the end of challenges caches, I'm not foreseeing that either.

 

If wish to limit cache visits, front load it with a multi or puzzle, make it a series bonus cache. And/or put it in some lonely and inconvenient place (and hope nobody builds a powertrail around it). There's no restricting visits on Challenge caches.

Share this post


Link to post

If wish to limit cache visits, front load it with a multi or puzzle, make it a series bonus cache. And/or put it in some lonely and inconvenient place (and hope nobody builds a powertrail around it). There's no restricting visits on Challenge caches.

So, for the challenge caches in question that are located in southern Michigan......about half of them had a puzzle element to them.....meaning you had to 'solve' something before you could figure out where the prize was. In most of these cases the coords were easily determined. I think this was an attempt by the CO to semi-limit the number of visitors to a cache. Once I figured out how to solve the puzzle element of these challenge caches I was free to seek out the prize.....which I did. But it wasn't until I got home and was told by the CO that my 'notes' were about to be deleted that I actually read 'his' rules about needing to qualify for the challenge before going after the caches. He didn't even wait for me to figure out which ones I actually qualified for before deleting my logs. I looked on the cache pages and there were plenty of other non-smiley notes. Because I had run into a muggle at one of the caches.....I think that put him over the edge and he must have gone into a note cleanup tirade. To be clear....the CO has no problem with my logging the challenge caches down the road when I actually qualify. He just didn't want the notes.

 

I think having the notes there is believed to show other cachers that they could seek the caches before they qualified....and thus produce additional traffic at the caches which increases the likelihood of them being muggled.

Share this post


Link to post

To TopShelfRob, you seem to be promoting either the return of "email me for coords", or the end of challenge caches. I'd say "email me for coords" is dead, it's been 9 years since it went away. As to the end of challenges caches, I'm not foreseeing that either.

 

If wish to limit cache visits, front load it with a multi or puzzle, make it a series bonus cache. And/or put it in some lonely and inconvenient place (and hope nobody builds a powertrail around it). There's no restricting visits on Challenge caches.

I never said anything about "email me for coords" -- I'm trying to state a case for "seek only when you qualify"... and as for "There's no restricting visits on Challenge caches" - well, of course not if you can't prevent non-qualifiers from seeking them -- that's my point!

 

If wish to limit cache visits, front load it with a multi or puzzle, make it a series bonus cache. And/or put it in some lonely and inconvenient place (and hope nobody builds a powertrail around it). There's no restricting visits on Challenge caches.

There's no limit to how many people can eventually solve (or cheat on) a "multi, puzzle, or a series bonus cache." And as for putting it in some lonely and inconvenient place, there you wouldn't have to limit it.

Edited by TopShelfRob

Share this post


Link to post

I presigned a lot of challenge caches I found but never qualified for because they were far from home and I never knew if I'd be back again. Some I logged as found months and even years after finding them. For each I posted a note saying I found the cache but not yet qualified.

 

I only ever had one not deleted and oddly enough it was a challenge cache that came out 500 meters from my house. It involved finding caches at the 60 minutes of a latitude. I raced out, found the cache minutes after publication, came home and found I was 1 of the minutes short so I pisted a note stating I found the cache quite quick but missing a minute. Within 5 minutes my note was deleted.

 

About 3 months later I found my missing minute and logged the cache, never quite understood the point of deleting my note.

Share this post


Link to post

If wish to limit cache visits, front load it with a multi or puzzle, make it a series bonus cache. And/or put it in some lonely and inconvenient place (and hope nobody builds a powertrail around it).

There's no limit to how many people can eventually solve (or cheat on) a "multi, puzzle, or a series bonus cache."

By that logic, there's no limit to how many people will qualify for a challenge cache, either. In practical terms, however, the tougher the puzzle/multi/bonus and the tougher the challenge, the fewer the number of finders. The point is, you don't have to prohibit pre-qualified challenge cache signatures to restrict the number of finders. There are other methods (e.g., difficult puzzles/multis/bonuses).

 

And as for putting it in some lonely and inconvenient place, there you wouldn't have to limit it.

People limit themselves. Few people will go to an out-of-the-way location. Thus, if you hide a cache there, it will receive few visitors. Problem solved.

Share this post


Link to post

And as for putting it in some lonely and inconvenient place, there you wouldn't have to limit it.

People limit themselves. Few people will go to an out-of-the-way location. Thus, if you hide a cache there, it will receive few visitors. Problem solved.

Totally missing the point.... Yes, go put a cache in a lonely and inconvienent place, you won't get many visitors. But that has nothing to do with the hypothetical cache I'm talking about.

Share this post


Link to post

Totally missing the point.... Yes, go put a cache in a lonely and inconvienent place, you won't get many visitors. But that has nothing to do with the hypothetical cache I'm talking about.

Your hypothetical cache is based on a premise that is no longer enforceable. Sure you if could make a difficult challenge and the limit only those who have completed the challenge to visit the location it would get fewer visitors. But under current geocaching guidelines you can't prevent someone from visiting the the cache and signing the log based one whether they have already completed the challenge.

 

1. Since you can prevent a person from logging a "Found It" online log, you will reduce some visitors because for some people, finding a cache is all about the online WIGAS log.

 

2. Since you can apparently delete notes, you might discourage some more people who like to have a record that they have found the container, even if they are willing to postpone or go without the WIGAS point.

 

3. Some people will accept the antiquated view that a challenge cache is meant to be found only after you have completed the challenge.

 

So a challenge will get fewer visitor than a traditional, but may get visitors the challenge cache owner doesn't want to have.

 

The suggestion of putting the cache is some lonely and inconvenient place to limit finds may not be entirely effective when combined with the challenge requirement.

 

1. Some people will go to lonely and inconvenient place only if they know they will get a WIGAS point. But others will go for the adventure of going to that lonely inconvenient place. In other words, if I like the challenge of getting to the lonely and inconvenient location, I may go anyhow even if I haven't done the challenge.

 

2. Some people will decide that physical effort or potential risks put the lonely and inconvenient location beyond their comfort zone and even the inducement of a WIGAS point is not enough to get them to try. So someone may do the challenge and decided not to find the cache. For a fizzy challenge or some other challenge to find lonely or high terrain caches, a final like this might be appropriate. But it is also likely to get pre-found and signed, because a person was finding other caches nearby and although they don't yet qualify, they figure that they will at some time in the future.

Edited by tozainamboku

Share this post


Link to post

And as for putting it in some lonely and inconvenient place, there you wouldn't have to limit it.

People limit themselves. Few people will go to an out-of-the-way location. Thus, if you hide a cache there, it will receive few visitors. Problem solved.

Totally missing the point.... Yes, go put a cache in a lonely and inconvienent place, you won't get many visitors. But that has nothing to do with the hypothetical cache I'm talking about.

I'm uncertain which hypothetical cache you're talking about. If it's the intricate cache, those can be placed in lonely/inconvenient spots (as many of mine are). If it's the invite-people-in-for-tea cache, then that problem can be solved by simply asking logbook-signers if they have accomplished the challenge already before inviting them inside for tea. Again, there's usually more than one way to skin a cat.

Share this post


Link to post

If it's the invite-people-in-for-tea cache, then that problem can be solved by simply asking logbook-signers if they have accomplished the challenge already before inviting them inside for tea. Again, there's usually more than one way to skin a cat.

It's "invite-people-in-for-tea" type of cache I'm talking about, but it's also a "I don't-want-a-whole-bunch-of-non-qualifiers-that-I'm-not-intending-on-inviting-in-come-snooping-around-the-porch-because-they-still-want-to-sign-it-as-a-note" type of situation.

Share this post


Link to post

I don't know when the guidelines changed but my expectations as a challenge cache owner and finder of other peoples challenge caches is that you complete the requirements before signing the log.

Luckily my one challenge cache is placed so far off the beaten track that no one has bothered driving to it unless they qualify. In fact when people are driving through I doubt it would even show up in their PQs it is so far off the beaten track.

If someone from overseas was to e-mail me and say my cache was part way through their trip and they wanted to sign it before they qualify as long as they meet all the requirements in that one trip I would probably be ok with that. I have never had any one ask.

Share this post


Link to post

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
Sign in to follow this  
Followers 5

×